The party’s executive committee directed Acting Chair J.J. Summerell to make the request which must be sent to the SBOE by February 7. The candidates listed will be R. Lee Wrights, who was born in Winston-Salem but now lives in Texas, Roger Gary of Texas, R. J. Harris of Oklahoma, Gary Johnson or New Mexico, Carl Person of New York, and Bill Still of Virginia.

However, the N.C. primary will be held three days after the Libertarian Party nominates its presidential and vice presidential candidates at a national convention in Las Vegas May 2 to 6. The North Carolina primary is May 8.

California will also hold a Libertarian primary after the party’s national convention, but the state party has no say in that decision under California law. That ballot will include nine names, according to Ballot Access News.

It is unclear what action the SBOE will take. The election law statute requires the chairs of political parties recognized by the state to submit a list of names for the primary ballot of those candidates “generally advocated and recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in North Carolina.” It also says the SBOE “shall” nominate as primary candidates all those names submitted.

“If Newt Gingrich thinks it’s difficult to get on the Republican primary ballot in Virginia, he ought to try getting a new party or unaffiliated candidate on the ballot in North Carolina. Then he’d understand how the major parties limit voter choice by imposing restrictive ballot access laws.

“Speaker Gingrich said that only a ‘failed system’ excludes four out of the six major candidates and that ‘voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender.’ He’s absolutely right. It is a failed system which limits voter choice in any way. But as a historian, he should also know that what he called a ‘cumbersome’ process is working exactly as his own Republican Party – operating with the full cooperation of the Democratic Party – have designed it.

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry also failed to qualify for the primary. That’s poetic justice, since he’s one of only two governors to veto a ballot access reform bill in the last 60 years. In May 2003, Perry vetoed a bill to abolish the need for petitioners to read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach, according to Ballot Access News. So it’s disingenuous for him to say he’d ‘review the facts’ and possibly ‘challenge’ the decision – by his own party.

“Now that they know first-hand how restrictive ballot access laws are, perhaps Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry will join the effort to reform these laws and restore competition and true free choice to our elections.”

-30-

Free the Vote North Carolina
For more information:
Brian Irving, Press Secretary
birving@freethevotenc.com
919.538.4548

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and creator of ROOTforAmerica.com

The U.S. economy is crumbling. Businesses are collapsing in record numbers. Jobs have disappeared. Tax revenues are down dramatically. Coincidence?

Everything happening today under Obama resembles the storyline of Ayn Rand’s famous book, Atlas Shrugged, one of the most popular books of all time, selling over 7 million copies. Now, under President Obama, Atlas Shrugged has come to life. Rand prophesized a country dominated by socialists, Marxists and statists, where looters, free loaders and poverty promoters live off the productive class. To rationalize the fleecing of innovative business owners and job creators, the looter class demonized the wealthy, just as Obama and his socialist cabal are doing in real life today.

The central plot of Atlas Shrugged is that in response to being demonized, over-taxed, over-regulated, and punished for success, America’s business owners were disappearing — dropping off the grid, and refusing to work 16-hour days to support those unwilling to put in the same blood, sweat and tears. They were going on strike. Because of that the original proposed title of “Atlas Shrugged” was “The Strike.”

They were going on strike to teach that civilization cannot survive when people are slaves to government. That without a productive class of innovative business owners willing to risk their own money and work 16-hour days, weekends and holidays, there are no jobs and no taxes to pay for government. If you punish the wealthy, the risk-takers, the innovators, you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In Obama’s America, fiction is becoming fact.

The lesson of Atlas Shrugged is that without the $100,000+ earners paying into Social Security, there are no pensions for the poor and lower middle class. Without the wealthy owners of million-dollar mansions paying $25,000 and $50,000 annual property tax bills, there is no funding for public schools. Without the wealthy paying into Medicare, there is no “free” healthcare for the elderly. Without capitalists motivated by profit, there are no discoveries to eradicate polio or create miraculous cancer and AIDS drugs. Without capitalists motivated by profit, there are no jobs, period! That is what happens when the producers of society go on strike to protect themselves from the looters.

Ayn Rand was warning the looters that there are consequences to their overzealous actions. She was warning that if the productive classes felt used, demonized, ripped off, and taken for granted, they would go on strike — stop working, retire early, go underground, or move to places where achievement is celebrated and they feel appreciated.

The latest U.S. Census proves Ayn Rand right. Under Obama the wealthy are striking, voting with their feet. They are moving to low-tax red states in droves, escaping from high-tax blue states where they are being demonized and punished by the millions.

The Census proves that Obama’s tax and spend philosophy is a dismal failure, an economic disaster killing jobs. It is no coincidence that 1.9 million FEWER Americans are working than before Obama’s stimulus. It is no coincidence that jobs are not returning to the private sector. It is no coincidence that tax revenues have dropped dramatically and cannot support Obama’s bloated Big Brother government. The innovators, risk-takers, and wealthy he demonized and punished are on strike.

The high tech revolution has killed the progressive-liberal tax-and-spend dream. Because of the Internet, email, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Satellite TV, I-phones, I-pads, and cell phones, business owners are no longer prisoners of Big Brother. Take a look at states where the latest Census shows Americans moved during the past decade: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Virginia — all low- or no-tax red states, states that lead the USA in economic freedom.

Now look at states they escaped from: New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan. Taxpayers, business owners, jobs creators, retirees with assets are fleeing the high tax, big spending, Big Brother states — the states being run like Obama is running the nation.

Progressives be afraid, be very afraid. If Obama is re-elected, these valuable producers will pick up and leave America altogether. There is a big world out there begging them to come. Places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Monte Carlo, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Bahamas, and Cayman Islands are low-tax havens that appreciate business owners and their sacrifices. They welcome wealthy ex-patriates. They celebrate individual achievement. They reward instead of punish business owners and financial risk-takers. They are wonderful places to live and are aggressively pursuing Americans.

I am just one small businessman, a third-party Libertarian political leader. Yet I personally have heard from thousands of fans, friends and supporters who have left America, are thinking of leaving America, are visiting other countries right now to decide where to go, or making preparations to leave in case Obama is re-elected. Just as Ayn Rand predicted, business owners are going on strike. Permanently.

The high tech revolution has freed them to run their businesses from anywhere in the world. The same high tech tools and toys that toppled a powerful and invincible 30-year dictator in Egypt and now threaten to topple powerful leaders throughout the Arab world, also offer mobility and freedom to U.S. taxpayers. Obama better learn the lesson of Mubarek before millions more business people decide they do not need to put up with looters, free loaders, and politicians who despise them.

Atlas is shrugging. Ayn Rand is saying “I told you so.”

And The Strike has begun.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

On June 7, the North Carolina House passed HB 32, which lowers the number of signatures for previously unqualified parties, and independent candidates. Existing law requires over 85,000 signatures for statewide independent candidates, or new parties. The bill lowers that (for 2012) to approximately 18,000 signatures.

The vote was 66-50. The only legislator who spoke against the bill was Edgar V. Starnes (R-Caldwell) who said that it is bad for society to let anyone participate in electoral politics outside of the Democratic and Republican Parties. The bill now goes to the Senate. The Senate will probably adjourn on June 19. However, if the bill doesn’t pass this year, it will still be alive in 2012, because North Carolina has two-year legislative sessions.

When you go to the polls in North Carolina, you have less freedom to choose who you want to elect than citizens of virtually every other state. A recent North Carolina Supreme Court decision (Libertarian Party et. al. v. North Carolina et. al.) will continue to restrict our electoral freedom. However, the state legislature is considering a bill that would protect our rights.

Read the rest here.

Voters deserve choices at the polls, but not too many, the N.C. Supreme Court said in a disappointing ruling last week.

The 5-1 decision denied the state Libertarian Party’s challenge to North Carolina’s strict ballot-access law.

Oh, but the law isn’t really so strict, the court said. After all, the Libertarian Party has surmounted the obstacles and earned a place on the ballot, the opinion, authored by Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, noted.

Read the rest here.

The N.C. Supreme Court has upheld the state laws that give North Carolina the second most restrictive ballot access requirements in the nation. The justices ruled 5-1 that they were “not persuaded” that ballot access is a “fundamental right.”

“Indeed, ballot access rights, though distinct from voting rights, are central to the administration of our democracy,” said Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, writing for the majority. “While these rights are of utmost importance to our democratic system, they are not absolute.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Newby countered, “Ballot access implicates our citizenry’s freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom to vote.”

The state Libertarian Party brought the suit in 2005, contending that North Carolina’s elections laws unduly restrict the rights to freedom of speech, association and due process. The complaint challenged the constitutionality of the “entire scheme” of the state’s elections laws under the North Carolina Constitution. The N.C. Green Party later joined the lawsuit.

“Ballot access implicates our citizenry’s freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom to vote.”

– Justice Paul Newby, dissenting from the majority opinion in LPNC vs. The State

“To say the least, this is a major disappointment to those of us in the Libertarian Party and a major slap in the face for the voters of North Carolina,” said Libertarian state chair Barbara Howe. “The court believes that the burden imposed on new political parties is not severe and that the state is justified in restricting access to the ballot to avoid voter confusion and ballot clutter.”

“What stuns me the most is that the state’s attorneys never demonstrated that North Carolina has any voter confusion or ballot clutter, nor did they cite any voter confusion or ballot clutter in any other state with less restrictive ballot access requirements,” she said.

Howe said the real losers in this case are North Carolina voters. “Unless the law can be changed through the legislative process, I am almost 100 percent certain that no other political party will ever appear on North Carolina’s ballot.”

The Supreme Court acknowledged that this was the first time they had been asked to rule on the constitutionality of election law under the state constitution. They also said they were not bound by federal court rulings in interpreting the state constitution. Yet their decision is based almost exclusively on U.S. Supreme Court precedents, particularly the case of Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, a case involving fusion party candidacies.

Current law requires a new political party to collect more than 85,000 signatures from registered voters in order to be placed on the ballot. Then the new party must get at least two percent of the vote for governor or president to stay certified.

The success of the Libertarian Party in overcoming this heavy burden was actually used against them by the court in upholding the restrictions. The court cited the fact that a new party has 3 1/2 years to collect the signatures, with few restrictions on who can sign the petition, as justification for the burden. They also noted that the Libertarians managed to collect the required number with only five people.

“What the court failed to take into account, in fact ignored, despite the evidence we presented, was the cost and amount of work needed for ballot access drives,” Howe said. For the 2008 election, the Libertarian Party spent more than $130,000, in part to pay signature collectors, and expended thousands of volunteer hours.

Howe also noted that an effort to qualify another new party for the 2010 election failed despite the fact that it was heavily funded by two major government employees unions and hired 100 signature collectors.

“Giving major parties a de facto ballot line while requiring all other political parties to expend enormous resources to gain and maintain a ballot line is akin to allowing some parties to start on third base while everyone else starts in the batter’s box,” said Nick Triplett, N.C. Green Party vice chair.

Dr. Mike Munger, Duke University political science professor, said the key point in the case was the court’s determination that the ballot access rules didn’t violate gender or race discrimination laws. They held that the law was not “significantly burdensome” and so a “less exacting review,” rather than “strict scrutiny,” could be used to determine its constitutionality.

“Once it was decided that this was not a strict scrutiny problem, the only question before the court was this: are North Carolina ballot access laws so restrictive that no reasonable person could accept them as necessary for the purpose the state has claimed, preventing confusion and ballot clutter,” he said.

Munger, the Libertarian candidate for governor in 2008, said it was important to note that the court did not consider the merits of the law. The question they considered was merely whether it is inconceivable that a reasonable legislator would make such a choice.

In his dissent, Justice Newby wrote that the courts should have questioned whether the signature rules were reasonable in balancing the values of orderly elections against the fundamental democratic right of choice at the ballot box. He said he would have sent the case back to a lower court with orders “to strictly scrutinize” the requirements.

“The court said the issue is not whether the General Assembly should choose lower restrictions. The issue is whether, as a matter of constitutional law, they are allowed to choose the restrictions it chose,” explained Munger. “And the court found nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the N.C. Constitution that prevented it.”

While he said he disagreed with that view, Munger said he thinks the court’s decision was plausible given that basis. “Deciding that this is not a strict scrutiny question is where I disagree with the court, he said. “I think our side demonstrated that North Carolina ballot access law is much more restrictive than is necessary to achieve the purposes the state claims. Other states have achieved those same purposes with much lower barriers.”

“The court basically said the remedy is for changing the legislation by persuasion, not by judicial force,” said Munger.

Libertarians and Greens are already taking action in the political arena. They’re part of a multi-partisan coalition working to pass a bill that would dramatically reduce the signatures new political parties and unaffiliated candidates need to be listed on the ballot. The Free the Vote Coalition includes all the state’s so-called “third parties” as well as public policy groups from across the political spectrum.

House Bill 32, the Electoral Freedom Act, is being considered by the House elections committee. It’s sponsored by Republicans, Democrats and the only unaffiliated member of the legislature. The bill would reduce the barriers for “third parties” and unaffiliated candidates for statewide office to qualify for ballot listings to around 10,000 signatures.

“At a time when 25 percent of North Carolina NC voters are unaffiliated, not to mention how many Democrats and Republicans simply register with the ‘lesser of two evils,’ we cannot wait any longer for our government to allow choice in our elections,” said Triplett. “ The current political and economic crisis in our state demands new leadership based on grassroots independence rather than stale partisan ideology.”

On March 11, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5-1 that the petition to put a new political party on the ballot, 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, does not violate the State Constitution. Here is the 17-page opinion, and the 9-page dissent. For 2012, the law requires 85,379 signatures. Except in California and Florida, there is no instance in U.S. history in which any political party, or independent candidate, has ever overcome a signature petition requirement that high.

The decision seems to assume, without any discussion, that the State Constitutional provision “All elections shall be free” (Article I, section 10) doesn’t give any more protection for ballot access than the U.S. Constitution does. Nor does the decision discuss the North Carolina Constitutional provision that says “Every qualified voter, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.” The decision depends on the unfavorable ballot access decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued over the last 40 years, not on decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court that interpret the State Constitution.

The decision erroneously implies that many other states do not let primary voters sign a petition for a new party. The decision mentions an Ohio election law that refers to petitions to place a candidate on a party’s primary ballot, and says that Ohio is therefore a state in which only party members may sign a petition to place a party on the ballot. This is a factual error. The decision also mentions that California once wouldn’t let primary voters sign for an independent candidate, but that has nothing to do with petitions to create a new party; furthermore California abandoned that restriction in 1976. Texas is the only state in the nation that won’t let primary voters sign a new party’s petition. Thanks to Mike Munger for the link.

BURNET, Texas (Feb. 23) – Since I signed on as the campaign manager of the Lee Wrights for President Exploratory Committee I’ve taken some heat from some of my radical and anarchist friends in the libertarian movement, people I love and respect, for getting involved in electoral politics. Some of them have even called me a statist, which is very hurtful.

Now I understand libertarians may have disagreements about tactics, and I understand that some in the movement refuse to participate in electoral politics because it’s based on force and violence. I understand and I agree with many of these views. But a true libertarian attitude is to respect each other’s choices, not condemn them.

I’ve chosen to become involved in the electoral process because I’m driven to do it. I’m driven to do it first because I love and respect R. Lee Wrights and what he stands for, and second because it’s a way to use the networking infrastructure of electoral politics to educate the mainstream about radical libertarianism, the heart and soul of libertarianism.

That’s why I think it’s the right thing to do and I’ll continue to do it. I have no problem with disagreements and arguments over tactics. But disagreement is no reason for good people in the movement to be mean to one another. As Lee has said, libertarianism is a way of life. I’m a libertarian because of what I do, not what I say. If we in the libertarian movement can’t respect the right of each of us to make our own decisions, what kind of message does that send to people outside the movement? What ammunition does that give to our real opponents?

All of us in the libertarian movement are on different parts of the journey. I came from a conservative, classical liberal background and I evolved. We all evolve over time. Some will take a little longer to get to that point where we are not afraid to think about a society without the state. We are all afraid because we have been conditioned to be afraid by the state, by government schools, by our society.

From the classical liberal to the anarchist, no matter where you are on that journey towards freedom I’ll work with you because you are my friend, you are a friend of liberty. I’ll never call you a statist because you participate in electoral politics. I’ll work with anyone wanting to maximize freedom and minimize coercion.

Lee Wrights has earned a well-deserved reputation as a radical, passionate warrior for freedom and liberty. He’s devoted his life to working within the Libertarian Party, one small part of the libertarian movement, in order to secure a freer tomorrow.

Lee chose to participate in electoral politics and the Libertarian Party because he believes Americans can’t vote for liberty and freedom unless there are Libertarian candidates on the ballot. That’s also why he’s made sure ballot access drives were a key component of Libertarian Party activities, including running successful ballot access drives in his home state of North Carolina.

He believes, as I do, that the Libertarian Party should promote a message that represents the views of all libertarians — radicals, reformers, minarchists, anarchists – whatever label you want to apply to yourself. We are all on the same team, we just play different positions. This campaign is focused on representing and celebrating libertarianism in the Libertarian Party.

The message of this campaign is a message all libertarians can and should embrace – stop all war. But before we make peace with the world, we must stop all war within ourselves, and within the libertarian movement.

All of us in the Wrights 2012 campaign agree with Lee that Stop All War is the message the Libertarian Party must champion in 2012. If we don’t, nobody else will. To spread that message across the country, we will need the help of anyone who desires to be free and who opposes tyranny in any form.

All libertarians should join us to stop all war.

-30-

Thomas Hill is chair of the Lee Wrights for President Exploratory Committee. He is also executive director of Stop All War and regional coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty. In 2008, he served as aide de camp for the Dr. Mary Ruwart for President campaign. Hill is a past chair of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and a charter member of the Cabarrus County LP, where he has served as chair, treasurer and membership secretary. He was a candidate for Cabarrus County Commission in 2002 and 2004, the Cabarrus County Board of Education in 2006 and 2008, the N.C. Senate in 2008 and the U.S. House 2010. The North Carolina native now lives in Illinois.

Contact:
Brian Irving
Press Secretary
WRIGHTS 2012 EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE

http://www.wrights2012.com

CHARLOTTE (Feb. 2) – Free the Vote North Carolina announced yesterday the formation of the Free the Vote Coalition, an alliance of the state’s alternative political parties and several electoral reform groups, who have banded together to enact major ballot access reform this year.

Rep. Stephen LaRoque will file the Electoral Freedom Act of 2011 tomorrow. It will be co-sponsored by fellow Republican Rep. Glen Bradley as well as Democratic Representatives Paul Luebke and Jean Farmer-Butterfield. The bill will dramatically reduce the restrictions placed on new political parties and unaffiliated candidates attempting to get on the ballot.

“The Free the Vote Coalition is a truly non-partisan alliance of alternative political parties and public policy groups joined together in the common cause of the right to vote,” said Jordon Greene, founder and president of Free the Vote NC in announcing formation of the coalition.

In addition to Free the Vote NC, coalition members include the Conservative, Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and the Modern Whig parties, the N.C. Center for Voter Education, NC Common Cause, Democracy NC, and the John Locke Foundation.

“These groups have joined together to work to restore the right of every citizen to vote for the candidate of their choice, a right currently denied by the state’s exploitative, unequal and free speech stifling laws that keep most alternative political parties and unaffiliated candidates off the election ballot,” Greene said.

Greene said that it was very significant that the coalition includes political parties and groups representing all shades and colors of the political spectrum.

“North Carolina has the second most restrictive ballot access laws in the entire nation,” noted Greene. “This scheme is deliberately intended to impede competition to the two major parties by placing unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on any potential electoral competitors through restrictive signature requirements unparalleled in most other states.”

Key provision of the Electoral Freedom Act of 2011 are:

* Reduce the number of signatures a new political party needs obtain for ballot access to the fixed figure of 10,000.

* Reduce the number of votes a new political party must get in order to remain on the ballot the fixed number 10,000 for any statewide candidate.

* Reduce the number of signatures an unaffiliated candidate for statewide offices needs to obtain to the fixed figure of 10,000.

* Set a fixed number of signatures for unaffiliated candidates to run for U.S. House, the state General Assembly and local office.

For more on the Electoral Freedom Act of 2011, go to Free the Vote NC

.

-30-

For more information:
Brian Irving, press secretary
919.538.4548

Free the Vote North Carolina

PO Box 42858 Charlotte, North Carolina 28215

Government-printed ballots in the United States were first created in 1888, and almost from the start, opponents of new and minor political parties started manipulating the ballot access laws to keep certain parties off the ballot.  The first such instance was in Nevada, when the 1893 legislature increased the petition requirement for new parties and independent candidates to 10% of the last vote cast, in a vain attempt to keep the Peoples (Populist) Party off the ballot.

But in over a century of struggle to avoid monopolization of the general election ballot to just the two major parties, there has never been a pressure group that worked in favor of restrictive ballot access laws, until very recently.  Leaders of the former New Alliance Party, who have renamed themselves several times, now call themselves IndependentVoting.org.  They hold themselves out as the leaders of independent voters, but they have become a pressure group working to limit choices on the general election ballot to just Democrats and Republicans.

IndependentVoting fund-raising pitches say that the organization’s goal is to enable independent voters to vote in major party primaries.  However, the bulk of IndependentVoting’s activity during 2010 has been to advance the goal of switching California to the top-two system.  This is ironic, because California had already been a state (ever since 2001) in which independent voters were already able to vote in all major party primaries for Congress and state office.

Compared to Republican and Democratic voters, independent voters are the most supportive voters for minor party candidates.  For example, see this poll taken in the North Carolina U.S. Senate race in 2010, which shows that Libertarian Party nominee Michael Beitler received the support of 12% of independent voters, whereas he received the votes of only 3% of the major party voters.  Other polls that give this much detail, from other states in 2010, showed similar results; see this example fromCalifornia.  Thus, when a new election system appears that removes minor party candidates from the general election ballot, that new system disproportionately injures independent voters more than it injures any other voters.

The California top-two proposal does more harm than just removing minor party candidates from the general election ballot.  It says write-ins can’t be counted in November for Congress and state office; it makes it far more difficult for a minor party to remain on the ballot for President; it discriminates against independent candidates by not letting themselves use the label “independent” on any ballot; and it vastly increases the number of signatures to get on the primary ballot for minor party candidates who don’t pay the filing fee.  Notwithstanding all these harms done to voting rights, IndependentVoting enthusiastically supports the top-two law in California, and expresses open hostility toward minor parties.  For example, see this cartoon, carried on a blog associated with IndependentVoting.

IndependentVoting communications have been dishonest.  IndependentVoting has repeatedly asserted that independents were not permitted to vote in major party primaries in California before the adoption of the top-two system.  IndependentVoting has also recently inaccurately claimed that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 14, when the truth is that the court merely declined to expedite the case.  IndependentVoting also fosters confusion, by constantly referring to the California top-two system as an “open primary”.

Members of the New Alliance Party were once defenders of voter choice in the general election.  The New Alliance Party won ballot access lawsuits in Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington.  Activists from the New Alliance Party wrote the first bill in Congress to outlaw restrictive ballot access laws, introduced by Congressman John Conyers in 1985.  They worked hard for that bill, which was re-introduced in 1987 and 1989.  In 1990, the Rainbow Lobby, associated with the New Alliance Party, managed to get 40 co-sponsors for the bill, although it did not pass.  The New Alliance Party also filed many lawsuits against the Commission on Presidential Debates, trying to end the Democratic-Republican monopoly on presidential debates.  These cases did not win, but they came closer to winning than any other lawsuits on this subject, and one of the New Alliance debates lawsuits won a procedural victory on standing to file such lawsuits.

Minor parties are hoping to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases against the Georgia and Hawaii ballot access laws, and are also hoping to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case against Connecticut’s discriminatory law on public funding of candidates, which requires independent candidates to submit a petition of 20% of the last vote cast (in addition to raising the same number of small campaign contributions that major party candidates must raise).  IndependentVoting has shown no interest in supporting these efforts, and judging from the cartoon, supports the Connecticut discrimination against independent candidates in the matter of public funding.

BURNET, Texas (Nov. 9) – The most significant impact of the 2010 elections is neither a mandate for the Republican Party, nor a rejection of the Obama Administration, but in the continued growth of the Libertarian vote at the local, state and national level, said potential Libertarian presidential candidate R. Lee Wrights.

“The Libertarian Party continued its record of putting up more candidates than any other third party in America, more than 800 this year,” Wrights said. “More than one million Americans voted for Libertarian candidates for the U.S. House and 15 of those candidates polled better than five percent of the vote in a three-way race, a substantial increase from what we’ve achieved before.”

Wrights said he was also proud of the accomplishments of the party’s two U.S. Senate candidates who earned more than four percent of the vote while challenging the Democrat and Republican party nominees.

“It’s clear that the Libertarian message is reaching an increasing number of Americans, who are beginning to realize that not only is government part of the problem, but so are the Democratic and Republican parties,” Wrights said. He noted that Libertarian candidates nationwide drew more than one percent of vote total for its House candidates, something no third party has done since the Progressives Party in 1948.

Unlike some Libertarians, Wrights said he doesn’t care to speculate on what the election results mean for the Republican Party. “I’m only concerned about what the results mean for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement,” he said.

“One of their own candidates, Marco Rubio, warned that Republicans would make a grave mistake if the believed the election results were an embrace of the party,” Wrights said. “Rubio said it was a ‘second chance’ for the party to make good on its promises.”

“I can’t argue with the idea of giving anyone, or any party, a second chance,” Wrights said. “But the Republicans and Democrats have had many second chances – and third chances, and fourth chances – yet still continue to grow government, increase spending, raise taxes, limit freedom and expand our nations wars.”

“The question is, at what point do you say enough is enough, and stop voting for political parties who simply do not do what they say they are going to do,” Wrights said.

Wrights is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. He has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states.

The 52-year old writer and political activist was born in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and now lives in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All

. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

For more information:
Thomas Hill
Phone: (704) 621-8621
E-mail: thomasbhill@msn.com

Thanks very much to Morgan Daybell for helping me find instances at which independent legislators were elected or re-elected last week. It appears that independents were elected to state legislators in 2010 in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont. We are still waiting to see if one was elected in Colorado. Whether this list ultimately contains 9 states or 10 states, it appears more states elected independents to state legislatures this year than in any previous year in at least sixty years.

Louisiana and Virginia also have independent state legislators, but those two states didn’t have legislative elections this year.

See:

Rhode Island Independent State Senator Re-Elected

Kentucky Re-Elects Independent State Senator

Tennessee Independent Legislator Re-Elected

Rusty Kidd, Independent Georgia Legislator, Re-Elected

Independent Elected to South Dakota House of Representatives

Independent Elected to Wisconsin Legislature

Alabama Elects First Independent to State Legislature Since 1983

North Carolina Independent Candidate Elected to State Legislature

Colorado Hasn’t Determined a Winner in Legislative Race Involving Independent Write-in Incumbent

Green Party Activist Elected to Maine Legislature as an Independent Candidate

Libertarian candidates consider election defeats a learning experience, prepare for the next election.

Although the results of the 2010 election were a disappointment for North Carolina’s Libertarian candidates because they were not elected, several consider it a very good learning experience and preparation for future campaigns.

Dr. Mike Beitler, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, said that the goal of his campaign was to let voters know there is an alternative to the “bloated, outdated two-party system.”

“The establishment parties will continue to drive our country off the cliff until the American people wake up to the reality that both establishment parties will continue to serve their lobbyist corporate masters to the detriment of the American people,” he said.

T.J. Rohr was the first-ever Libertarian candidate for district attorney. He ran in district 25 which covers Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties.

“Although I am disappointed that I was not elected, I am honored and humbled by the support I did receive,” he said. “I am also proud that so many people were open to the issues I raised in this election: focusing on serious crimes involving theft, violence, and fraud, and de-emphasizing non-violent drug offenses, while repudiating illegal and unconstitutional traffic checkpoints and the death penalty.”

Stephen Burr said that he hoped the victorious Republicans in the Union County commissioner’s race would work with the current board members to find solutions to the problems the county faces.

“Union County taxpayers are on the hook for $900 million in bond payments and interest over the next quarter century, with a looming budget crisis that will be brought on by not adequately planning for the coming plunge in property tax revenues, “ he said. Burr intends to remain active in the county and won’t rule out another run for the commission or other office in 2012.

Stephanie Watson, candidate for N.C. Senate District 16, noted that 2010 was the year the state Libertarian Party “turned our principles into action.”

“Our party’s candidates stepped forward, many running very active campaigns across the state with the hope of being elected.” she said. “It has been an honor to share this adventure with them. I’ve learned a lot as a first-time candidate that I hope to take with me into 2012, both for my own run and for our party’s race for governor.”

“Third party candidates are often thought to divide the vote of a major party, but this was clearly not an issue,” said Lon Cecil, who ran for U.S. House District 12. “As discussed in several forums with Congressman Watt, we have many economic and job problems that Congress will have to quickly address in the 112th session. It is only 24 months until the next elections”

In the still-to-be-decided 2nd Congressional District race, Tom Rose got more votes than the margin between incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge and Republican Renee Elmers. The unofficial returns have the margin at 1,646 and Rose received 3,463 votes. Rose doesn’t speculate about whether his candidacy helped or hurt either, because he said he received support from both Democrats and Republicans.

“I’ve had Republicans, including one General Assembly candidate, tell me that they have voted for me, and have had Democrats and Republicans fed up with their parties making phone calls for me.”

“I do know that I convinced many Democrats to vote for me because they were upset with Etheridge but would not vote for the Republicans,” Rose said. “As amazing as it may seem, most of those who said this were over 60.”

Nationwide, the Libertarian Party extended its record of fielding more candidates than any other third party, more than 800 candidates. More than one million Americans voted for a Libertarian candidate for U.S. House and 15 of those candidates got more than five percent of the vote in a three-way race, a significant increase over past elections. That represents more than one percent of the vote total, more than any third party has earned since Henry Wallace’s Progressives in 1948.

Two U.S. Senate candidates received better than four percent of the vote in a three-way race, including party co-founder David Nolan who ran in Arizona against 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Mike Beitler may not have received as many votes as the polls indicated he would, but he said he’s pleased with the election results because of the campaign staff and organization he’s built.

“I am ready to turn this all over to Mike Munger,” Beitler said, referring to the party’s last gubernatorial candidate. Many state Libertarians expect Munger, a Duke University professor, will run again in 2012. Munger got nearly three percent of the vote for governor in 2008, which allowed the state Libertarian Party to remain ballot qualified.

Beitler said it’s time for the Libertarians to get past the idea of just staying on the ballot and start building an organization that runs and wins elections. He said he entered the race in order to “ask the hard questions” of the two establishment candidates.

“The establishment parties will continue to drive our country off the cliff until the American people wake up to the reality that both establishment parties will continue to serve their lobbyist corporate masters to the detriment of the American people,” Beitler said in a thank you message on his campaign blog.

“My goal was to let the voters know that there is an alternative in North Carolina to this bloated, outdated two-party system, and if what you desire is real change, then you need to do something different.”

Beitler’s vote total of 55,201, representing 2.1 percent of the vote, is the second highest for a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate. Chris Cole garnered the Libertarian highest vote totals, 133,430 votes (3.1 percent) in the historical 2008 presidential election year. But voter turnout that year was a record-shattering 70 percent. In most elections, especially off-year elections, voter turnout in this state hovers around 43 percent.

The North Carolina Libertarian Party has fielded a candidate in every U.S. Senate race since 1996.

Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate votes

* 2010: Mike Beitler, 55,201votes (2.1%)

* 2008: Chris Cole, 133,430 votes (3.1%)

* 2004: Tom Bailey, 47,743 votes (1.4%)

* 2002: Sean Haugh, 33,807 votes (1.5%)

* 1998: Barbara Howe, 36,963 votes (1.9%)

* 1996: Ray Ubinger, 23,296 votes (1%)

North Carolina’s Libertarian candidates are optimistic that regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election, their campaigns have made a difference. They are optimistic because of the reaction they’ve received from voters unhappy with the two major parties.

“Voters are quite polarized this year, so my results are going to depend on turnout of unaffiliated and disenchanted Republican voters, plus a low Democrat turnout,” said Lon Cecil, candidate for U.S. House District 12. “Third party candidates are often considered a spoiler for one of the two old party candidates, but the odds seem better this year to spoil both old parties.”

During early voting Cecil said three men “who were clearly World War II generation” told him they were going to vote Libertarian because they couldn’t trust “either of the old parties.” Cecil recently was endorsed by the Rhinoceros Times, a Greensboro newspaper.

John Sams has also won the endorsement of a local paper, the Elizabeth City Daily Advance, in his race for Chowan County Commission District 3. The paper praised Sams for being “among the first county residents to question the county’s finances” and has “demonstrated his commitment to being fully informed on the county’s fiscal situation by attending budget deliberations.”

In the contentious race for U.S. House District 2, Tom Rose said he was most proud that he managed to get into one televised debate. Both Democratic incumbent Bob Etheridge and Republican Renee Elmers have spent enormous sums running attack ads. Rose said he’s swayed many Democrats and Republicans to vote for him by convincing them he can win and spend less the $5,000 in campaign funds.

“I feel like I have a good chance to win this race because I’m picking up many of the moderate Democrats votes,” Rose said. “I’ve had Republicans, including one General Assembly candidate, tell me that they have voted for me, and have had Democrats and Republicans fed up with their parties making phone calls for me.”

Rose’s candidacy may have on impact on what appears to now be a close race. A recent Civitas poll had Elmers leading Etheridge 46 percent to 41 percent, with Rose at 6 percent and 7 percent undecided.

Barry Coe hasn’t spent any money other than the filing fee in the race for state Senate District 24. He said he focused on attending forums and responding to surveys. “Many voters congratulated me for my ability to say, in clear terms, how they feel,” Coe said. He expects the race to be close.

A frequent comment he gets from people who say they agree with him is that they fear voting for him will be a wasted vote and elect the Democrat. Coe’s response is to explain that voting is about expressing a choice. “Don’t blame me if your candidate cannot motivate popular support,” he tells these voters.

Stephanie Watson thinks there will actually be a low voter turnout in her race for state Senate District 16, but that she’ll benefit from the candidacy Dr. Mike Beitler in the U.S. Senate race at the top of the ballot.

“I think Dr. Beitler could draw 5 to 10 percent in our district, and I’m predicting that my own race will reflect the same results,” she said. “He’s done an excellent job with limited resources of demonstrating the principles that voters can apply to most down-ticket Libertarian candidates across the state. I hope that translates into wins in many state and local races and impressive showings for our Congressional candidates, too.”

Voter dissatisfaction with the two-party duopoly was also evident in other ways, especially to some veteran Libertarian candidates. “This time people listened and agreed. This time no one walked away or disagreed.” said Richard Evey, a candidate in state Senate District 44. “I got some great feed back from some unlikely sources.”

Support from unlikely sources is also reflected in the fact that Beitler scored well with unaffiliated and liberal voters in several polls of the U.S. Senate race.

State party chair Barbara Howe said that Beitler has built on the success of the 2008 gubernatorial campaign, and she expects he will do as well as previous Libertarian candidates for U.S. Senate.

“Because of the campaign we ran in 2008 and because of the kind of candidate we’re running in 2010, where we have put forth articulate, smart candidates who really could serve if elected, we’re helping build the credibility of the party”she said.

Lon Cecil is running for U.S. Representative in North Carolina District 12. The Rhino Times, a weekly newspaper in Greensboro, recommends a vote for Cecil in its October 28 issue. Read the article.

Michael Beitler, Libertarian for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, polled 6% in this SurveyUSA poll. Beitler has maintained support at 6% in several polls since June. Beitler received support from 11% of liberals, 5% of moderates, and 5% of conservatives. He was supported by 16% of independents, 5% of Democrats, and 2% of Republicans.

Dr. Mike Beitler, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, announces that anti-war activist Adam Kokesh will be the keynote speaker at his election season kick-off event, to be held on Friday, September 17, 2010 at 7:30pm at the Greensboro Airport Marriott.

The Greensboro Airport Mariott was the location of the press conference where Beitler announced his candidacy exactly one year ago, September 17, 2009.

Keynote Speaker: Adam Kokesh, Iraq War veteran, grassroots activist and politician. His daily radio show, Adam VS The Man, is broadcast on KIVA 1550 AM in Albuquerque, New Mexico and is streamed on the station’s website www.1550kiva.com as well as on www.adamvstheman.com.

A former Marine, Adam is a veteran of the Iraq War where he served in Fallujah in 2004. After his tour of duty, Adam returned to the United States and completed his studies at Claremont McKenna College in California where he earned his BA in psychology. In February, 2007 Kokesh became an active member of the Iraq Veterans of the War (IVAW) and participated in several protests throughout the country. Adam’s activism, determination and eloquent speeches at anti-war and political rallies have caught the attention of the national and local media. Earlier this year, Kokesh ran for the GOP Congressional primary in New Mexico’s 3rd district and garnered the endorsements of Ron Paul (R-Texas), Attorney Bruce Fein, the Republican Liberty Caucus as well as local leaders and organizations.

Adam’s book about his service in the Iraq War and activism afterwards, Hot, Dirty and Dangerous, is scheduled for release in early 2011. A national speaking tour is currently being planned to follow the release of the book.

The evening will be presided by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Mike Munger, economist, chair of the political science department at Duke University and 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for North Carolina governor.

This event is open to the public. A donation to the Beitler for Senate campaign is requested but not required.

For more information, please visit the Beitler for Senate website http://www.beitlerforsenate.com

The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what could be a landmark ballot access case for the state. The hearing culminated a five-year legal battle by the Libertarian and Green parties to reform the state’s restrictive ballot access laws.
Five of the seven justices grilled the attorneys for both sides. It appeared from the questions that the justices were very familiar with details of the case and the history of ballot access in the state.

The questions focused on several key issues, including the limits of the state’s compelling interest in regulating elections, what causes so-called “ballot clutter,” and the concept of “voter confusion” that may or may not occur with multiple parties on the ballot and multiple offices up for election.

Justice Edward Brady observed that the bottom line of the case was about control. “The one who controls the law, writes history,” he said.

Several of the justices questioned the argument by the state that a ballot with more than two parties would result in long lines on election day and discourage voting.

“What’s wrong with that,” commented Justice Brady. He pointed out that the United States is the only major democratic nation with only two political parties.

“There are lots of other ways of dealing with long lines than keeping people off the ballot,” responded Ken Soo, an attorney representing the Libertarian Party.

At one point, Brady asked the state’s attorney, Alex Peters,“Is ballot access a fundamental right” and Peters responded, “The right to vote is a fundamental right.” Brady said, “That doesn’t answer the question.”

The state attorney was also vague in responding to several questions for the justices to specifically define the state’s “compelling interest” in limiting the number of parties on the ballot.

“There never has been any evidence provided by the state to show that it has a compelling interest in such restrictive ballot access laws,” said Robert Elliot, an ACLU attorney representing the Green Party.

“This case is not about the Libertarian Party,” said Barbara Howe, Libertarian Party chair, “This case is about the people of North Carolina.” She said that the huge barriers erected by the State for ballot access, which get bigger every year, limit political dialogue and limit voting choice.

“Limiting choices is not a good thing,” she said. “More voices participating, not fewer, make for a vibrant democracy.”

In addition to Libertarians and Greens, several members of the Constitution Party attended the hearing to support the lawsuit. Terry Hardison, a Constitution Party director, summed up their feelings when he said, “If they win, we win.”

It will probably take several months for the court to issue a decision, according to attorneys for the Libertarian Party. They believe that whatever the court decides, it will be a landmark decision for ballot access.

For background, go to LPNC vs. The State at LibertyPoint.org
-30-